jump to navigation

Tubes . . . of many sorts January 29, 2009

Posted by vorpalkeith in science.
Tags: , , , , , ,
trackback

“The high definition screens dominating world television sales could become obsolete following a major breakthrough in 3-D liquid crystal technology that has already stoked the interest of a world leading flat screen TV manufacturer.

A researcher at Cambridge University is looking to replicate the Princess Leia hologram from Star Wars and adapt the technology for a widely available 3D television that could be ready within three years.”

http://www.businessweekly.co.uk/2009012832887/electronics/-3d-tv-plugs-into-star-wars-legacy.html


“The 3D system is possible following a breakthrough by Dr Wilkinson that has allowed him to combine liquid crystals with vertically grown carbon nanotubes, creating a reconfigurable three-dimensional liquid crystal device structure.”

Oh, those wacky carbon nanotubes. Is there anything they CAN’T do?

Between this, super light and super durable armor, space elevators and all the other things they’re going to bring to this world, I think we’ll see find ourselves living in a tubular future indeed. Pun SO intended.

Onto tubes of another sort entirely, we have the subject of masturbation. Sure, your mom always said it was bad for you, but now there’s something like proof.

“You’ll go blind,” she would say. But you’d be unresponsive, locked in your room with a gym sock and the quarterly womens’ fashion magazine sent out free in the mail from Sears. Mom never said anything about cancer though.

http://illseed.com/2009/01/28/study-masterbation-causes-cancer/

“Researchers at the University of Nottingham have determined that men who masturbate often in their 20s and 30s are far more prone to developing prostate cancer.”

Now, I’m not sure that’s a legitimate article because the site looks a bit dodgy, so I’m hoping someone can confirm. But I couldn’t resist a good wank joke, so I went with it.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Barb - January 30, 2009

Well there is this article from 2003 that disputes that report:

http://www.psa-rising.com/med/prevention/ejaculation72003.shtml

And another from 2004:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/04/040408090927.htm

BUT, here is the same summary of the article that you read and it’s from Science Daily:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090126082343.htm?ref=aggre_pop

So I guess you can just believe whichever one you want and go with that. 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: